Dan Brown Copyright infringement cases Did Brown commit copyright infringement? In August 2005 author Lewis Perdue unsuccessfully sued Brown for plagiarism, on the basis of claimed similarity between The Da Vinci Code and his novels, Did brown write novels? his 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. What other novels did he write? Angels & Demons (2011-12). Were there other copyright cases? Brown has been sued twice in U.S. Federal courts by the author Jack Dunn who claims Brown copied a huge part of his book The Vatican Boys What was the outcome of that lawsuit? ). Both lawsuits were not allowed to go to a jury trial. Who else sued him? In August 2005 author Lewis Perdue unsuccessfully sued Brown for plagiarism, Did anyone else take him to court? In April 2006 Brown's publisher, Random House, won a copyright infringement case brought by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh,
Did Brown deny the copyright infringement?
Did Dan Brown deny the copyright infringement?
In August 2005 author Lewis Perdue unsuccessfully sued Brown for plagiarism, on the basis of claimed similarity between The Da Vinci Code and his novels, The Da Vinci Legacy (1983) and Daughter of God (2000). Judge George Daniels said, in part: "A reasonable average lay observer would not conclude that The Da Vinci Code is substantially similar to Daughter of God."  In April 2006 Brown's publisher, Random House, won a copyright infringement case brought by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who claimed that Brown stole ideas from their 1982 book Holy Blood Holy Grail for his 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. It was in the book Holy Blood Holy Grail that Baigent, Leigh, and co-author Henry Lincoln had advanced the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child and that the bloodline continues to this day. Brown apparently alluded to the two authors' names in his book. Leigh Teabing, a lead character in both the novel and the film, uses Leigh's name as the first name, and anagrammatically derives his last name from Baigent's. Mr Justice Peter Smith found in Brown's favor in the case, and as a private amusement, embedded his own Smithy code in the written judgment.  On March 28, 2007, Brown's publisher, Random House, won an appeal copyright infringement case. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales rejected the efforts from Baigent and Leigh, who became liable for paying legal expenses of nearly US$6 million.  Brown has been sued twice in U.S. Federal courts by the author Jack Dunn who claims Brown copied a huge part of his book The Vatican Boys to write The Da Vinci Code (2006-07) and Angels & Demons (2011-12). Both lawsuits were not allowed to go to a jury trial. In 2017, in London, another claim was begun against Brown by Jack Dunn who claimed that Justice was not served in the U.S. lawsuits. CANNOTANSWER
On March 28, 2007, Brown's publisher, Random House, won an appeal copyright infringement case.
Daniel Gerhard Brown (born June 22, 1964) is an American author best known for his thriller novels, including the Robert Langdon novels Angels & Demons (2000), The Da Vinci Code (2003), The Lost Symbol (2009), Inferno (2013), and Origin (2017). His novels are treasure hunts which usually take place over a period of 24 hours. They feature recurring themes of cryptography, art, and conspiracy theories. His books have been translated into 57 languages and, as of 2012, have sold over 200 million copies. Three of them, Angels & Demons, The Da Vinci Code, and Inferno, have been adapted into films.

The Robert Langdon novels are deeply engaged with Christian themes and historical fiction, and have generated controversy as a result. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian and he is on a "constant spiritual journey" himself. He claims that his book The Da Vinci Code is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith."

Early life
Dan Gerhard Brown was born on June 22, 1964, in Exeter, New Hampshire. He has a younger sister, Valerie (born 1968) and brother, Gregory (born 1974). Brown attended Exeter's public schools until the ninth grade. He grew up on the campus of Phillips Exeter Academy, where his father, Richard G. Brown, was a teacher of mathematics and wrote textbooks from 1968 until his retirement in 1997. His mother, Constance (née Gerhard), trained as a church organist and student of sacred music. Brown was raised an Episcopalian, and described his religious evolution in a 2009 interview:

"I was raised Episcopalian, and I was very religious as a kid. Then, in eighth or ninth grade, I studied astronomy, cosmology, and the origins of the universe. I remember saying to a minister, 'I don't get it. I read a book that said there was an explosion known as the Big Bang, but here it says God created heaven and Earth and the animals in seven days. Which is right?' Unfortunately, the response I got was, 'Nice boys don't ask that question.' A light went off, and I said, 'The Bible doesn't make sense. Science makes much more sense to me.' And I just gravitated away from religion."

When asked in the same interview about his then-current religious views, Brown replied:"The irony is that I've really come full circle. The more science I studied, the more I saw that physics becomes metaphysics and numbers become imaginary numbers. The further you go into science, the mushier the ground gets. You start to say, 'Oh, there is an order and a spiritual aspect to science.'"

Brown's interest in secrets and puzzles stems from their presence in his household as a child, where codes and ciphers were the linchpin tying together the mathematics, music, and languages in which his parents worked. The young Brown spent hours working out anagrams and crossword puzzles, and he and his siblings participated in elaborate treasure hunts devised by their father on birthdays and holidays. On Christmas, for example, Brown and his siblings did not find gifts under the tree, but followed a treasure map with codes and clues throughout their house and even around town to find the gifts. Brown's relationship with his father inspired that of Sophie Neveu and Jacques Saunière in The Da Vinci Code, and Chapter 23 of that novel was inspired by one of his childhood treasure hunts.

After graduating from Phillips Exeter, Brown attended Amherst College, where he was a member of Psi Upsilon fraternity. He played squash, sang in the Amherst Glee Club, and was a writing student of visiting novelist Alan Lelchuk. Brown spent the 1985 school year abroad in Seville, Spain, where he was enrolled in an art history course at the University of Seville. Brown graduated from Amherst in 1986.

Career

Composer and singer
After graduating from Amherst, Brown dabbled with a musical career, creating effects with a synthesizer, and self-producing a children's cassette entitled SynthAnimals, which included a collection of tracks such as "Happy Frogs" and "Suzuki Elephants"; it sold a few hundred copies. The music has been compared to Gary Glitter. He then formed his own record company called Dalliance, and in 1990 self-published a CD entitled Perspective, targeted to the adult market, which also sold a few hundred copies. In 1991 he moved to Hollywood to pursue a career as singer-songwriter and pianist. To support himself, he taught classes at Beverly Hills Preparatory School.

He also joined the National Academy of Songwriters and participated in many of its events. It was there that he met his wife, Blythe Newlon, who was the academy's Director of Artist Development. Though it was not officially part of her job, she took on the seemingly unusual task of helping to promote Brown's projects; she wrote press releases, set up promotional events, and put him in contact with people who could be helpful to his career. She and Brown also developed a personal relationship, though this was not known to all of their associates until 1993, when Brown moved back to New Hampshire, and it was learned that Newlon would accompany him. They married in 1997, at Pea Porridge Pond, near Conway, New Hampshire.
In 1994 Brown released a CD titled Angels & Demons. Its artwork was the same ambigram by artist John Langdon which he later used for the novel Angels & Demons. The liner notes also again credited his wife for her involvement, thanking her "for being my tireless cowriter, coproducer, second engineer, significant other, and therapist". The CD included songs such as "Here in These Fields" and the religious ballad, "All I Believe".

Brown and his wife, Blythe, moved to, Rye, New Hampshire in 1993. Brown became an English teacher at his alma mater Phillips Exeter, and gave Spanish classes to 6th, 7th, and 8th graders at Lincoln Akerman School, a small school for K–8th grade with about 250 students, in Hampton Falls.

Brown has written a symphonic work titled Wild Symphony which is supplemented by a book of the same name. The book is illustrated by Hungarian artist Susan Batori which feature simple ambigrams for children, while the visuals trigger the corresponding music in an accompanying app. The music was recorded by the Zagreb Festival Orchestra and will receive its world concert premiere by the Portsmouth Symphony Orchestra in 2020.

Writing

While on vacation in Tahiti in 1993, Brown read Sidney Sheldon's novel The Doomsday Conspiracy, and was inspired to become a writer of thrillers.

He started work on Digital Fortress, setting much of it in Seville, where he had studied in 1985. He also co-wrote a humor book with his wife, 187 Men to Avoid: A Survival Guide for the Romantically Frustrated Woman, under the pseudonym "Danielle Brown". The book's author profile reads, "Danielle Brown currently lives in New England: teaching school, writing books, and avoiding men." The copyright to the book is attributed to Brown.

In 1996 Brown quit teaching to become a full-time writer. Digital Fortress was published in 1998. His wife Blythe did much of the book's promotion, writing press releases, booking Brown on talk shows, and setting up press interviews. A few months later, Brown and his wife released The Bald Book, another humor book. It was officially credited to his wife, though a representative of the publisher said that it was primarily written by Brown. Brown subsequently wrote Angels & Demons and Deception Point, released in 2000 and 2001 respectively, the former of which was the first to feature the lead character, Harvard symbology expert Robert Langdon.
Brown's first three novels had little success, with fewer than 10,000 copies in each of their first printings. His fourth novel, The Da Vinci Code, became a bestseller, going to the top of the New York Times Best Seller list during its first week of release in 2003. It is one of the most popular books of all time, with 81 million copies sold worldwide as of 2009. Its success has helped push sales of Brown's earlier books.

In 2004 all four of his novels were on the New York Times list in the same week, and, in 2005, he made Time magazine's list of the 100 Most Influential People of the Year. Forbes magazine placed Brown at No. 12 on their 2005 "Celebrity 100" list, and estimated his annual income at US$76.5 million. According to the article published in The Times, the estimated income of Brown after Da Vinci Code sales is $250 million.
Brown's third novel featuring Robert Langdon, The Lost Symbol, was released on September 15, 2009. According to the publisher, on its first day the book sold over one million in hardcover and e-book versions in the US, the UK and Canada, prompting the printing of 600,000 hardcover copies in addition to the five million first printing.

The story takes place in Washington D.C. over a period of twelve hours, and features the Freemasons.  The book also includes many elements that made The Da Vinci Code a number one best seller.

Brown's promotional website states that puzzles hidden in the book jacket of The Da Vinci Code, including two references to the Kryptos sculpture at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Virginia, give hints about the sequel. Brown has adopted a relevant theme in some of his earlier work.

Brown's fourth novel featuring Robert Langdon, Inferno is a mystery thriller novel released on May 14, 2013, by Doubleday. It ranked No. 1 on the New York Times Best Seller list for the first 11 weeks of its release, has sold more than 1.4 million copies in the US alone.

In a 2006 interview, Brown stated that he had ideas for about 12 future books featuring Robert Langdon.

Characters in Brown's books are often named after real people in his life. Robert Langdon is named after John Langdon, the artist who created the ambigrams used for the Angels & Demons CD and novel. Camerlengo Carlo Ventresca is named after On a Claire Day cartoonist friend Carla Ventresca. In the Vatican archives, Langdon recalls a wedding of two people named Dick and Connie, which are the names of his parents. Robert Langdon's editor Jonas Faukman is named after Brown's real life editor Jason Kaufman. Brown also said that characters were based on a New Hampshire librarian, and a French teacher at Exeter, André Vernet. Cardinal Aldo Baggia, in Angels & Demons, is named after Aldo Baggia, instructor of modern languages at Phillips Exeter Academy.

In interviews, Brown has said his wife, Blythe, is an art historian and painter. When they met, she was the Director of Artistic Development at the National Academy for Songwriters in Los Angeles. During the 2006 lawsuit over alleged copyright infringement in The Da Vinci Code, information was introduced at trial that showed that Blythe did research for the book. In one article, she was described as "chief researcher.

Doubleday published his seventh book, Origin, on October 3, 2017. It is the fifth book in his Robert Langdon series.

Reception

Brown's prose style has been criticized as clumsy, with The Da Vinci Code being described as 'committing style and word choice blunders in almost every paragraph'. In his 2005 documentary for Channel 4, The Real Da Vinci Code, author and presenter Tony Robinson criticised both the accuracy of the author's historic research and the writing itself, considering the book to be not particularly well written. Much of the criticism was centered on Brown's claim in his preface that the novel is based on fact in relation to Opus Dei and the Priory of Sion, and that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents and secret rituals in [the] novel are accurate".

Influences and habits
In addition to Sidney Sheldon, Brown has been quite vocal about a number of other literary influences who have inspired his writing.

Recurring elements that Brown prefers to incorporate into his novels include a simple hero pulled out of their familiar setting and thrust into a new one with which they are unfamiliar, an attractive female sidekick/ love interest, foreign travel, imminent danger from a pursuing villain, antagonists who have a disability or genetic disorder, and a 24-hour time frame in which the story takes place.

Brown's work is heavily influenced by academic Joseph Campbell, who wrote extensively on mythology and religion and was highly influential in the field of screenwriting. Brown also claims to have based the character of Robert Langdon on Campbell.

Director Alfred Hitchcock appears to be another key influence on Brown. Like Hitchcock, the writer favours suspense-laden plots involving an innocent middle-aged man pursued by deadly foes, glamorous foreign settings, key scenes set in tourist destinations, a cast of wealthy and eccentric characters, young and curvaceous female sidekicks, Catholicism and MacGuffins.

Brown does his writing in his loft. He told fans that he uses inversion therapy to help with writer's block. He uses gravity boots and says, "hanging upside down seems to help me solve plot challenges by shifting my entire perspective".

Copyright infringement cases
In August 2005 author Lewis Perdue unsuccessfully sued Brown for plagiarism, on the basis of claimed similarity between The Da Vinci Code and his novels, The Da Vinci Legacy (1983) and Daughter of God (2000). Judge George B. Daniels said, in part: "A reasonable average lay observer would not conclude that The Da Vinci Code is substantially similar to Daughter of God."

In April 2006 Brown's publisher, Random House, won a copyright infringement case brought by authors Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, who claimed that Brown stole ideas from their 1982 book Holy Blood Holy Grail for his 2003 novel The Da Vinci Code. It was in the book Holy Blood Holy Grail that Baigent, Leigh, and co-author Henry Lincoln had advanced the theory that Jesus and Mary Magdalene married and had a child and that the bloodline continues to this day. Brown apparently alluded to the two authors' names in his book. Leigh Teabing, a lead character in both the novel and the film, uses Leigh's name as the first name, and anagrammatically derives his last name from Baigent's. Mr Justice Peter Smith found in Brown's favor in the case, and as a private amusement, embedded his own Smithy code in the written judgment.

On March 28, 2007, Brown's publisher, Random House, won an appeal copyright infringement case. The Court of Appeal of England and Wales rejected the efforts from Baigent and Leigh, who became liable for paying legal expenses of nearly US$6 million.

Brown has been sued twice in U.S. Federal courts by the author Jack Dunn who claims Brown copied a huge part of his book The Vatican Boys to write The Da Vinci Code (2006–07) and Angels & Demons (2011-12). Both lawsuits were not allowed to go to a jury trial. In 2017, in London, another claim was begun against Brown by Jack Dunn who claimed that justice was not served in the U.S. lawsuits.

Charity work
In October 2004, Brown and his siblings donated US$2.2 million to Phillips Exeter Academy in honor of their father, to set up the Richard G. Brown Technology Endowment to help "provide computers and high-tech equipment for students in need".

On April 14, 2011, Dan and his wife, Blythe Newlon Brown, created an eponymous scholarship fund to celebrate his 25th reunion from Amherst College, a permanently endowed scholarship fund at the college whose income provides financial aid to students there, with preference for incoming students with an interest in writing.

On June 16, 2016, Dan Brown donated US$337,000 to the Ritman Library in Amsterdam to digitize a collection of ancient books.

Personal life
Brown and his wife, Blythe Newlon, were supporters of the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation.

In 2019, after 21 years of marriage, Brown and his wife acrimoniously divorced, with the financial settlement still to be concluded due to Brown's alleged infidelities during the latter part of their marriage.

Bibliography

Stand-alone novels
 Digital Fortress (1998)
 Deception Point (2001)
 Wild Symphony (2020), illustrated children's book

Robert Langdon series

 Angels & Demons (2000)
 The Da Vinci Code (2003)
 The Lost Symbol (2009)
 Inferno (2013)
 Origin (2017)

Adaptations
In 2006, Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code was released as a film by Columbia Pictures, with director Ron Howard. It was widely anticipated and launched the 2006 Cannes Film Festival, though it received overall poor reviews. It currently has a 26% rating at the film review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, derived from 165 negative reviews of the 214 counted. It was later listed as one of the worst films of 2006 on Ebert & Roeper, but also the second highest-grossing film of the year, pulling in  US$750 million worldwide.

Brown was listed as one of the executive producers of the film The Da Vinci Code, and also created additional codes for the film. One of his songs, "Phiano", which Brown wrote and performed, was listed as part of the film's soundtrack. In the film, Brown and his wife can be seen in the background of one of the early book signing scenes.

The next film, Angels & Demons, was released on May 15, 2009, with Howard and Hanks returning. It, too, garnered mostly negative reviews, though critics were kinder to it than to its predecessor. , it has a 37% meta-rating at Rotten Tomatoes.

Filmmakers expressed interest in adapting The Lost Symbol into a film as well.

The screenplay was written by Danny Strong, with pre-production expected to begin in 2013. According to a January 2013 article in Los Angeles Times the final draft of the screenplay was due sometime in February, but in July 2013, Sony Pictures announced they would instead adapt Inferno for an October 14, 2016 release date with Ron Howard as director, David Koepp adapting the screenplay and Tom Hanks reprising his role as Robert Langdon.  Inferno was released on October 28, 2016.

Imagine Entertainment was announced in 2014 to produce a television series based on Digital Fortress, written by Josh Goldin and Rachel Abramowitz.

In 2021, Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol was adapted into a television series repositioned as an origin story for Brown's Robert Langdon character with Ashley Zukerman playing Langdon. It ran on the streaming service Peacock for one season.

References

External links

 Dan Brown Official Website
 
 
 

 
1964 births
Living people
20th-century American novelists
21st-century American novelists
American mystery writers
American male novelists
American thriller writers
Techno-thriller writers
Amherst College alumni
People from Exeter, New Hampshire
Phillips Exeter Academy alumni
Phillips Exeter Academy faculty
Novelists from New Hampshire
People involved in plagiarism controversies
People from Rye, New Hampshire
20th-century American male writers
21st-century American male writers
Contributory copyright infringement is a way of imposing secondary liability for infringement of a copyright. It is a means by which a person may be held liable for copyright infringement even though he or she did not directly engage in the infringing activity. In the United States, the Copyright Act does not itself impose liability for contributory infringement expressly. It is one of the two forms of secondary liability apart from vicarious liability. Contributory infringement is understood to be a form of infringement in which a person is not directly violating a copyright but, induces or authorises another person to directly infringe the copyright.

This doctrine is a development of general tort law and is an extension of the principle in tort law that in addition to the tortfeasor, anyone who contributed to the tort should also be held liable.

Requirements 
The requirements for fulfilling the threshold of contributory infringement and imposing liability for copyright infringement on a party are-
 The defendant having knowledge of a direct infringement; and
 The defendant materially contributing to that infringement.
Contributory infringement leads to imposition of liability in two situations. First situation is when the defendant, through his conduct, assists in the infringement, and the second situation is when the means for facilitating the infringement such as machinery is provided by the defendant.

Knowledge 
The knowledge requirement for contributory infringement is an objective assessment and stands fulfilled if the defendant has actual or constructive knowledge of an infringement, i.e., if he or she has reason to believe that an infringement is taking place. But, constructive knowledge need not be imputed to the defendant if the product was capable of significant noninfringing uses.

Material contribution 
Material contribution is the second requirement of contributory infringement. For instance, merely providing facilities or the site for an infringement might amount to material contribution. But, some courts put emphasis on the contribution to be 'substantial' and therefore, would hold that providing equipment and facilities for infringement is not in itself determinative of material contribution.

Difference from vicarious liability 
Vicarious liability is another form of secondary liability for copyright infringement through which a person who himself has not directly infringed a copyright can, nevertheless, be held liable. The requirements for attracting vicarious liability under copyright law are-
 The defendant had the right to control the infringing activity; and
 The defendant derives a financial or commercial benefit from the infringement
Unlike contributory infringement, vicarious liability can be imposed even in the absence of any intent or knowledge on part of the defendant. In the Napster case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit observed:

"In the context of copyright law, vicarious liability extends beyond an employer/employee relationship to cases in which a defendant "has the right and ability to supervise the infringing activity and also has a direct financial interest in such activities."

In the United States 
In the United States of America, the doctrine of contributory infringement is based on the 1911 case of Kalem v Harper Brothers. The ingredients of contributory infringement were laid down in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Gershwin Publishing Corp v Columbia Artists Management Inc. in which the court said that contributory infringement is said to happen when someone, with knowledge of the infringing activity, induces, causes, or materially contributes to the infringing conduct of another.
This doctrine was developed in the context of the 1909 Copyright Act which did not have any reference to contributory infringement. But, the 1976 Act recognised the exclusive right of a copyright owner 'to do and to authorize' the rights attached to a copyright enumerated in the Act. The words 'to authorize' were meant to bring contributory infringements within the purview of the Act. But, still, the Act did not specify the requirements of such forms of infringement and left its application to the discretion of courts.

Sony Betamax case 
The case of Sony Corp v Universal City Studios Inc, commonly known as the Betamax case, gave the United States Supreme Court its first opportunity to comprehensively look into and interpret the rules regarding secondary liability and contributory infringement in context of the 1976 Copyright statute. The primary issue in this case was whether a VCR manufacturing company could be held liable for copyright infringements done by its customers. 
The court held that secondary liability for copyright infringements was not a foreign concept to US Copyright law and it was well enshrined in the copyright law of the United States. In the court's own words

But, in this case, the Court held that Sony did not have actual knowledge of the infringing activities of its customers. At the most it could be argued that Sony had constructive knowledge of the fact that "its customers may use that equipment to make unauthorised copies of copyrighted material." The court then relied on the "staple article of commerce" doctrine of patent law and applied it to copyrights. The 'staple article of commerce' defence is available under Patent law in the United States and it lays down that when an infringing article is capable of 'substantial non infringing uses', it would become a 'staple article of commerce' and therefore, not attract any liability for infringement.

Based on this reasoning, it was held

Since the Betamax was capable of "significant noninfringing uses", Sony was not held liable for contributory infringement.

Contributory infringement in P2P services 
Contributory infringement has been the central issue in the cases involving 'peer to peer' services such as Napster, Aimster, Grokster and Morpheus. The courts have applied the Sony Betamax ratio differently in all these cases. For instance, Napster was held liable for contributory infringement. But, a similar service like Grokster was not held liable for contributory infringement as in this case, a district court, grounding its reasoning on the Sony Betamax decision, held that secondary liability could not be applied to peer to peer services.

A&M Records v Napster 
Napster was the first peer to peer service to be subject to copyright infringement litigation. In the Napster case, the issue was regarding the infringement of copyrights through the 'Music Share' software of Napster. Whenever this software was used on a computer system, it would collect information about the MP3 files stored on the computer and send it to Napster servers. Based on this information, the Napster created a centralized index of files available for download on the Napster network. When someone wanted to download that file, the Music Share software would use the Napster index to locate the user who already had that file on their system and then connect the two users directly to facilitate the download of the MP3 file, without routing the file through Napster's servers.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found Napster liable for both "contributory infringement" and "vicarious infringement". Regarding the issue of contributory infringement, the court held that Napster had "actual knowledge" of infringing activity, and providing its software and services to the infringers meant that it had "materially contributed"  to the infringement. It was held that the defense in Sony was of "limited assistance to Napster". The test whether a technology is capable of substantial non infringing uses was relevant only for imputing knowledge of infringement to the technology provider. But, in Napster's case, it was found that Napster had "actual, specific knowledge of direct infringement", and therefore, the Sony test would not be applicable.

In Re Aimster 
In In re Aimster, the Seventh Circuit was called upon to decide the liability of peer to peer sharing of music files through the Instant Messaging services provided by Aimster. Aimster had argued that the transmission of files between its users was encrypted and because of that, Aimster could not possibly know the nature of files being transmitted using its services. But, the Seventh circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court which had issued a preliminary injunction against Aimster. 
It was found that Aimster had knowledge of the infringing activity. Its tutorial showed examples of copyrighted music files being shared. Also, the 'Club Aimster' service provided a list of 40 most popular songs made available on the service. It was also held that the encrypted nature of the transmission was not a valid defence as it was merely a means to avoid liability by purposefully remaining ignorant. It was held that 'wilful blindness is knowledge, in copyright law.."
The Sony defence raised by Aimster was also rejected because of the inability of Aimster to bring on record any evidence to show that its service could be used for non infringing uses. Lastly, Aimster could also not get benefit of DMCA 'safe harbor' provisions because it had not done anything to comply with the requirements of Section 512. Instead, it encouraged infringement.

MGM Studios v Grokster 
The District Court for the Central District of California, in MGM Studios v Grokster, held that the peer to peer services Morpheus and Grokster were not liable for copyright infringements carried out by their users. Unlike Napster, these services did not maintain a centralised index. Instead, they created ad hoc indices known as supernodes on the users computers. Sometimes, the software operated without creating any index at all. Thus, it was held that Grokster and Morpheus had no way of controlling the behaviour of their users once their software had been sold, just like Sony did with Betamax. 
It was found that the defendants did have knowledge of infringement because of the legal notices sent to them. But, it was also held that to attract liability under contributory infringement, there should be knowledge of a specific infringement at the precise moment when it would be possible for the defendant to limit such infringement. Also, it was found that there was no material contribution. For this, the court relied on Sony and compared the technology to that of a VCR or a photocopier to hold that the technology was capable of both infringing as well as non infringing uses.
Grokster differs from Sony, as it looks at the intent of the defendant rather than just the design of the system. As per Grokster, a plaintiff must show that the defendant actually induced the infringement. The test was reformulated as "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

Digital Millennium Copyright Act 
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act's Title II, known as the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, provides a safe harbor for online service providers and internet service providers against secondary liability for copyright infringements provided that certain requirements are met. Most importantly, the service provider must expeditiously take down or limit access to infringing material on its network if it receives a notification of an infringement.

Communications Decency Act
immunity under the communications Decency Act does not apply to copyright infringement as a cause of action.

Inducing Infringements of Copyright Bill 
The Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, or the INDUCE Act, was a 2004 proposal in the United States Senate which meant to insert a new subsection '(g)' to the existing Section 501 of the Copyright Act which defines 'infringement'. The proposed amendment would provide that whoever intentionally induces a violation of subsection (a) would be liable as an infringer. The term 'intentionally induces' has been defined in the bill as-
"intentionally aids, abets, induces, or procures, and intent may be shown by acts from which a reasonable person would find intent to induce infringement based upon all relevant information about such acts then reasonably available to the actor, including whether the activity relies on infringement for its commercial viability".

In the European Union 

In the European Union, the European Court of Justice has issued several rulings on related matters, mainly based on the InfoSoc Directive and E-Commerce Directive and focused on what constitutes an act of "communication to the public" or of "making available".

In India 
Section 51 of the Copyright Act, 1957 deals with copyright infringement in India. Section 51(a)(i) provides for when an infringement of copyright is deemed to have taken place. It states that when somebody does anything, the exclusive right to which is conferred on a copyright owner, without first securing a license to do so from the copyright owner or in contravention of a license, the copyright shall be deemed to have been infringed.
The basis for contributory infringement under Indian copyright law can be found in Section 51(a)(ii) which states that when someone 'permits for profit any place to be used for the communication of the work to the public where such communication constitutes an infringement of the copyright in the work, unless he was not aware and had no reasonable ground for believing that such communication to the public would be an infringement of copyright', then also, the copyright shall be deemed to have been infringed. 
Secondary infringement itself can be subdivided into two categories- activities that assist primary infringements, and activities that accentuate the effects of the primary infringement. Section 51(a)(ii) deals with cases in which somebody assist the primary infringement. Section 51(a)(ii) itself gives the defense which can be taken by a defendant to avoid liability under this provision, i.e., the defendant was not aware or had no reasonable ground for believing that the communication to the public would be an infringement of the copyright.
Section 51(b) deals with situations in which the effects of an already existing primary infringement are accentuated by the actions of the defendant. Section 51(b) provides that a copyright infringement will also be deemed to have taken place if a person sells, distributes, imports or exhibits in public by way of trade an infringing copy of a copyright-protected work.
Therefore, Section 51(a)(ii) and  Section 51(b) are the statutory basis for secondary liability in India including contributory infringement.

Information Technology Act, 2000 
The Information Technology Act, 2000 ("IT Act") contains specific provisions dealing with liabilities of Internet Service Providers. These provisions provide for 'safe harbors' for Internet Service Providers. Section 2(w) of the IT Act defines an 'intermediary' as 'intermediary with respect to any particular electronic message means any person who on behalf of another person receives, stores or transmits that message or provides any service with respect to that message'. Due to this wide definition, almost every entity, including ISPs, search engines and online service providers can get the benefit of the safe harbor provisions in the IT Act.
Section 79 of the IT Act provides that an intermediary shall not be liable for any third-party information, data, or communication link made available or hosted by the intermediary. But, an intermediary will get the benefit of the safe harbor provisions only if it satisfies certain conditions. The intermediaries function should be limited to providing access to a communication system, the intermediary should not initiate the transmission, select the receiver or modify the transmission and should observe the guidelines formulated by the Central Government in this regard.
The 'IT (Intermediary guidelines) Rules 2011' have been formulated to specify the conditions that an intermediary must satisfy to get the protection of safe harbor provisions. As per these guidelines,  the intermediary must observe due diligence measures specified under Rule 3 of the guidelines. For instance, the intermediary should take down any infringing material on its network within thirty-six hours of the infringement being brought to its notice.

My Space Inc. vs Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. 
In December, 2016, the Delhi High Court reversed the judgment passed by a single judge bench earlier to hold that unless 'actual knowledge' was proved, an intermediary could not be held liable for contributory copyright infringement.
In 2008, T-Series (Super Cassettes) had instituted a copyright infringement suit against MySpace for hosting infringing material in which Super Cassettes was the copyright owner, without first obtaining a license. The infringing material primarily consisted of sound recordings. It was alleged that MySpace was commercially exploiting the works of T Series by including advertisements with the works made available by it. The Single Judge had held that MySpace was guilty of copyright infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act and the benefit of safe harbor provisions under Section 79 of the IT Act were not available to it in light of Section 81 of the IT Act.
The judgment of the single judge was reversed on the following grounds-
 No Actual Knowledge
Liability under Section 51(a)(ii) can be avoided by the defendant if he or she is able to show that he or she did not have any knowledge of the infringing act or that he or she did not have any reason to believe that the communication would amount to an infringement. Super Cassettes had argued that 'place' under Section 51(a)(ii) includes a virtual space similar to the one provided by MySpace. It was argued that MySpace had knowledge of the infringement based on the fact that it had incorporated safeguard tools to weed out infringing material and that it invited users to upload and share content. Therefore, it was argued that there was implied knowledge. The Court held that to qualify as knowledge there should be awareness in the form of "actual knowledge" as opposed to just general awareness. Without specific knowledge of infringements, the intermediary could not be said to have reason to believe that it was carrying infringing material. Therefore, there was a duty on the plaintiff to first identify specific infringing material before knowledge could be imputed to the defendant.
 Safe Harbor under Section 79 of IT Act
Section 79 of the IT Act provides safe harbor to intermediaries provided certain conditions are met by them. But, Section 81 of the IT Act also states that nothing in the IT Act shall restrict the rights of any person under the Copyright Act, 1957. The single judge had interpreted Section 81 to mean that safe harbor under IT Act is not applicable in cases of Copyright Infringement.
The Court reversed this and held that Section 79 starts with a non obstante clause and precludes the application of any other law including Copyright law. Thus, any restriction on safe harbor provisions such as Section 81 can be read-only within the limits of Section 79. Also, the IT Act and the Copyright Act should be construed harmoniously given their complementary nature.
Further, MySpace's role was limited to providing access to a communication system. It only modified the format and not the content and even this was an automated process. Therefore, there was no material contribution also. To amount to an infringement under Section 51 of the Copyright Act, the authorization to do something which was part of an owner's exclusive rights requires more than merely providing the means or place for communication. To be held liable for being an infringer on the grounds of authorization, it was necessary to show active participation or inducement.
Therefore, Section 79 is available in cases of copyright infringement also provided the conditions under the Act and Intermediary Guidelines, 2011 are fulfilled. Since MySpace had fulfilled these requirements, it was given the protection of Section 79 of IT Act.

See also 
 Copyright law of India
 Copyright law of the United States of America
 Secondary Liability
 Copyright Act, 1976
 Digital Millennium Copyright Act
 Information technology Act, 2000

References

Infringement
Organized crime
Organized crime activity Perfect 10, Inc. v. Visa Int'l Serv. Ass'n is a court case in which the pornography magazine Perfect 10 filed a complaint against Visa and MasterCard for copyright infringement and trademark infringement.

Background 

Perfect 10 is a pornography magazine publisher that also markets online subscriptions to www.perfect10.com.  Both its magazine and its website feature copyrighted images of nude models.  Perfect 10 holds federal copyrights to the photographs published in its magazine and website.  Perfect 10 also holds federal trademark rights to the use of the term, "PERFECT 10," which prohibits other websites or agencies from using the term.

Timeline of the trial

Lawsuits filed against financial institutions 

Perfect 10 claimed that many websites have stolen its copyrighted images, misrepresented themselves as if they were affiliated with Perfect 10, and offered the stolen images for sale on the internet.  Perfect 10 alleges that the stolen-content websites are engaged in direct copyright infringement.

However, Perfect 10 did not directly sue the stolen-content websites. Instead, Perfect 10 sued the financial institutions which process credit card payments to these websites. This is similar to a past lawsuit Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc. in which Google was sued for its search engine popping up results with the stolen-content websites.

In this case, Perfect 10 sued Visa International, MasterCard International, and several affiliated banks and data processing services, alleging secondary liability under federal copyright and trademark law, secondary liability under California statutory and common law, and violations of California laws proscribing unfair competition and false advertising.

Initial dismissal by US District Court 
Initially, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the case.  Perfect 10 appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Perfect 10's Appeal: Secondary Liability for Copyright Infringement 

Perfect 10 appealed the district court's decision, maintaining that Defendants were guilty of contributory copyright infringement and vicarious copyright infringement.  Direct infringement under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 101 would apply only to the stolen-content websites.  In helping these websites process payments, however, the defendants were allegedly contributing to infringement.

Contributory copyright infringement 

Since contributory copyright infringement is a secondary liability and distinguishable from direct infringement, Visa could be indicted as a contributory infringer if it had knowledge of the infringing activity of the stolen-content websites, and if it induced or materially contributed to the infringement.  The court found the defendants not liable for contributory copyright infringement, because payment processing services do not constitute material contribution to the direct infringement.  This is the finding of the majority, although there is much dissent as to what constitutes material contribution.

Material contribution 

Perfect 10 argued that Defendants had chosen to continue to process credit card payments to the infringing websites, despite having knowledge of ongoing infringement.  Perfect 10 argued that the defendants induce, enable, and contribute to the infringing activity of stolen-content websites by persisting in providing payment services and facilities.  Perfect 10 drew analogies from prior cases: Fonovisa, A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. and MGM v. Grokster.  In Fonovisa, the defendant-appellee was accused of providing the "site and facilities" for infringement in the form of a swap meet that allowed infringing activity to take place on a large scale and for infringement to be profitable.  The Fonovisa court held that the infringers and the swap meet providers were in a mutual enterprise of infringement, and the swap meet providers encouraged infringement, which altogether constituted material contribution and inducement.  Perfect 10 argued that Visa was the cyberspace equivalent of such an illicit marketplace, and that without the material contribution of Visa's payment process system, infringement could not have happened on a large scale.

The court decided that infringement rests on reproduction, alteration, display, and distribution of Perfect 10's images over the Internet.  It argued that Visa and its payment processing services were not designed to reproduce or alter copyrighted images.  Even if users could not pay for images with credit cards, infringement could still continue on a large scale because other viable funding mechanisms were available.

Inducement 

In MGM v. Grokster, the court found that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."  Perfect 10 argued that the defendants induce customers to use their credit cards to purchase goods and services from infringing websites, and are therefore guilty of inducement of infringement.

The court made the distinction that the software system in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. and MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. were engineered and promoted explicitly for the purpose of facilitating infringement of copyrighted music, thereby reducing legitimate sales of such music.  In contrast, the defendant's system did not facilitate access to infringing websites.  Again, the defendants did not use its payment process system to copy, alter, distribute, or display infringing material.  Consumers did not use Visa to locate, view, or download the infringing images.  Thus, the court held that infringing websites simply use the defendants' system to process payments.

In addition, the court ruled that there was no evidence to suggest that the defendants engineered its payment processing system with the intent of promoting its use for infringement because its device was designed to process payment of any type of sales transacted on cyberspace.

The court also held that no facts suggested that the defendants promoted their payment system as a means to infringe, so inducement could not be established.

Vicarious copyright infringement 

Vicarious copyright infringement is established if Defendants have both the right and ability to supervise the infringing conduct and a direct financial interest in the infringing activity.  In this case, Perfect 10 alleged that the defendants had an indirect right and ability to control the content of the infringing websites by refusing to process credit card payments to the websites.

The court ruled that the defendants could block access to their payment system, but they could not block access to the Internet, and therefore could not block access to the infringing websites nor to the search engines that enabled their discovery.  In other words, since the defendants could not directly supervise infringing conduct, they did not have the right and ability to control content, and vicarious infringement could not be established.

Secondary liability for trademark infringement 

There are two kinds of secondary liability for trademark infringement:  Contributory trademark infringement and vicarious trademark infringement.  While trademark infringement is different from copyright infringement, Perfect 10's arguments in support of trademark infringement were essentially identical to those alleged in Perfect 10's copyright claims, so the court ruled they were not liable for trademark infringement.

Contributory trademark infringement 

To be liable for contributory trademark infringement, the defendants would have had to have intentionally induced the primary infringer to infringe, or continued to supply an infringing product to an infringer with knowledge that the infringer is mislabeling the particular product supplied." Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 855 (1982).

Perfect 10 alleged that the defendants played a critical role within the stolen-content websites' cycle of business that allowed the direct infringers to be profitable.  They also claimed that the websites were using the PERFECT 10 mark in a manner likely to cause the public to believe that these stolen-content websites were authorized by Perfect 10.  Perfect 10 continued by saying that Visa can choose to stop processing payments to these websites, which might have the practical effect of stopping or reducing the infringing activity.

The defendant's payment processing system was not an infringing product in itself, nor was it designed to intentionally induce trademark infringement, so contributory trademark infringement was not established.

Vicarious trademark infringement 

Vicarious liability for trademark infringement requires "a finding that the defendant and the infringer have an apparent or actual partnership, have authority to bind one another in transactions with third parties or exercise joint ownership or control over the infringing product." Hard Rock Café Licensing Corp. v. Concession Servs., Inc., 955 F.2d 1143, 1150.

The court found that defendants only processed payments to these websites and collected their usual processing fees, which did not constitute joint ownership.  It is the websites’ contracts with the consumers that bind the websites to provide the infringing images, not the websites’ relationship with Defendants.

See also 
 Secondary liability
 List of leading legal cases in copyright law
 MGM v. Grokster
 Perfect 10 v. Google
 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.

External links 
 Text of the court ruling
  Jane Ginsburg, An introduction of secondary liability for copyright infringement by Professor Jane Ginsburg (March, 2006)
  Jane Coleman,  Secondary Trademark Infringement: A Short Treatise on Contributory and Vicarious Infringement in Trademark (Revised, Sept. 2010).

United States copyright case law
United States Internet case law
2007 in United States case law
Perfect 10 (magazine) litigation